|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 11:00AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 15, 2010
|
You know, I'm not actually sure you can't get 6 counters off of this. Remember the whole thing about The Mimeoplasm  -in-a-graveyard repeatedly exiling itself to get arbitrarily large? Because replacement effects are figured out before the event, is there any particular reason why you can't replace "Enter the battlefield" with "Enter the battlefield, sacrificing this creature to Devour 5 and Devour 1"? I feel like there should be, but I'm not sure if the rules have a mechanism to treat sacrificing the same creature multiple times in the same event differently from exiling the same card multiple times.
Rules Nut Advisor
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:06PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2012
|
We've got a permanent with Devour 1 and Devour 5.
Devour is a replacement effect. The first instance of devour replaces "This permanent enters the battlefield" with "This permanent enters with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 1]." Then, the second instance replaces that with "This permanent enters the battlfield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 5]". Note that you could have switched their order so that Devour 1 "wins" instead.
This actually seems pretty counterintuitive. It means that any creatures sacrificed to the first devour ability are wasted. Thus, you can't mix and match devour.
Due to how counterintuitve this answer sounds, I'm not really committed to it. I like it better when the rules work the way I'd assume without poring over the comp rulebook. I assumed that you'd be able to sacrifice creatures to each devour ability separately, and, for each creature, get either five counters or one counter. If anyone can explain why the replacement effect doesn't work the way I've stated above, please correct me.
EDIT: I've been corrected. My intuition was right even if my rules-fu wasn't.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:20PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2004
|
We've got a permanent with Devour 1 and Devour 5.
Devour is a replacement effect. The first instance of devour replaces "This permanent enters the battlefield" with "This permanent enters with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 1]." Then, the second instance replaces that with "This permanent enters the battlfield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 5]". Note that you could have switched their order so that Devour 1 "wins" instead.
No. All that's replaced is "this permanent enters the battlefield".
The first replacement replaces "this permanent enters the battlefield" with "this permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed". The second replacement turns "this permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed" into "this permanent enters the battlefield with M +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 5] with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 1]".
Likewise, if you bring out a creature with modular while your opponent has Kismet  , Kismet's "tapped" doesn't touch modular's "with N +1/+1 counters on it", nor vice versa.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:28PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2008
|
Devour is a replacement effect. The first instance of devour replaces "This permanent enters the battlefield" with "This permanent enters with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 1]." Then, the second instance replaces that with "This permanent enters the battlfield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 5]".
That doesn't look right to me. Multiple instances of Bloodthirst can create multiple replacement effects that modify an "enters the battlefield" event multiple times without overwriting the number of +1/+1 counters that the previous replacement effects were adding. I don't see why Devour wouldn't be able to do the same.
Not that anyone would ever be likely to sacrifice any creatures to the lesser Devour effect anyway, so I suppose it's rather irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 2:34PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2012
|
Thanks, guys. That makes sense, and it's in line with my expectation. I'm happy about this.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 3:53PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2011
|
I think you would have to choose which instance of devour you were using for each saced creature. Devour cannot stack in the 'traditional' sense, you cannot get 6 couners from Devour 1 and Devour 5.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 4:02PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I think it is like Birthing Pod  in that you sac a creature to activate the ability, and that creature is immediately gone even if the ability is countered in some way  . With Devour, no matter the value, you sac a creature, and it is gone. The only way you could get Devour six out of two separate cases of Devour 5 and Devour 1 would be an effect that makes all cases of Devour add their values to have only one single case of Devour at a higher value instead. I don't know off the top of my head if there is a way for that to work, though. One creature per case of Devour, and you get to choose if there are multiple values of Devour for each creature sacced. I think also it might be like giving a creature First Strike twice. It doesn't become Double Strike, it just becomes First Strike, applied once during combat. That's all in laymen's terms for those like myself that are too lazy to try to explain the comp rules. I hope it helps a little for understanding if not for the legalistics of it in a court of Magic law.
If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I still believe I'm right. Think of it as religion. dubito ergo sum.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 4:14PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2010
|
Ok lets look at some rules:
From the MTG comprehensive rulebook:
702.80a. Devour is a static ability. “Devour N” means “As this object enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of creatures. This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it for each creature sacrificed this way.”
The key word for me is that it says it gets N +1/+1 for each creature sacrificed this way. If you have two devour effects you would have to choose which devour sacrificed the creatures, that one would be the effect that applies.
Think of it this way. Instead of a card having both devour 1 and devour 5 replace that with the above ability.
So the object would read:
As this object enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of creatures. This permanent enters the battlefield with 1 +1/+1 counter on it for each creature sacrificed this way.
As this object enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of creatures. This permanent enters the battlefield with 5 +1/+1 counters on it for each creature sacrificed this way.
So you'd have to choose which creatures are sacrificed with which ability and the number of counters they'd get would be determined by that.
DCI Level 2 Judge
Rockford, Illinois
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 4:18PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2007
|
You know, I'm not actually sure you can't get 6 counters off of this. Remember the whole thing about The Mimeoplasm -in-a-graveyard repeatedly exiling itself to get arbitrarily large? Because replacement effects are figured out before the event, is there any particular reason why you can't replace "Enter the battlefield" with "Enter the battlefield, sacrificing this creature to Devour 5 and Devour 1"? I feel like there should be, but I'm not sure if the rules have a mechanism to treat sacrificing the same creature multiple times in the same event differently from exiling the same card multiple times.
There was an [O] ruling that said you can't sac the same creature to two (or more) devour replacements.
With The Mimeoplasm, they ruled it the other way.
By rules as written, I don't see anything preventing me from choosing to apply the Devour 1 replacement and choosing to sac a saproling and then applying the Devour 5 and choosing to sac that same saproling to it as well. The saproling is still on the field for me to choose when I go to apply the second replacement effect.
The [O] ruling is contrary to 117.12
117.12. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, “[Do something]. If [a player] [does or doesn’t], [effect].” or “[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does or doesn’t], [effect].” The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves. The “If [a player] [does or doesn’t]” clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred.
Sacrificing a creature to devour is a cost to get the +1/+1 counters.
If they choose to sacrifice the creature to both devour replacements, the cost is sated regardless of what happens.
I don't see any substantial difference between The Mimeoplasm interaction and this devour interaction.
One is ruled one way and the other the other way.
MtG Rules Advisor &
Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJDJ VortexDCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320 Wit found in Rules Q&ARPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?" My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 4:18PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
reading the rules it doesn't say additional +1/+1 counters so for example what happens if a creature with Devour 2 enters because of undying  and sacrifices 1 creature does it enter with 2 or 3 +1/+1?
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
